Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BlazeMeter vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Functional Testing Tools (8th), Load Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th)
Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (9th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.4%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 0.3%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Bala Maddu - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases
Overall, it's helped our ability to address test data challenges. The test data features on their own are very good, but version control test data isn't included yet. I think that's an area for improvement. We can update the test data on the cloud. That's a good feature. There's also test data management, which is good. [Runscope] doesn't have the test data management yet. Mock services do, and performance testing has it. We can do the same test through JMeter, validating the same criteria, but the feedback from [Runscope] is quite visible. We can see the request and the response, what data comes back, and add the validation criteria. We can manage the test environments and test data, but running the same API request for multiple test data is missing. We cloned the test cases multiple times to run it. They need to work on that. Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within [Runscope] would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes. In the future, I would like to see integrations with GitLab and external Git reports so we could have some sort of version control outside as well. There is no current mechanism for that. The ability to have direct imports of spoken API specifications instead of converting them to JSON would be nice. There are some features they could work on.
Alan Chiou - PeerSpot reviewer
Has Mobile Studio feature which can generate scripts
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard."
"There is a repository of all the scripts that we have created. You can go back and compare tests to see what the tests looked like. If I want to go and compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"The user interface is good."
"One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
 

Cons

"Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within Runscope would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The scalability features still need improvement."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers."
"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."
"It is an averagely priced product."
"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"I rate the product's price two on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. The solution is not expensive."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
16%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
23%
Insurance Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about BlazeMeter?
It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
I'm using Digital.ai Continuous Testing to create and test a mobile application. We're developing and testing a mobile app.
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Experitest Seetest, Experitest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. Digital.ai Continuous Testing and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.